'Way back in the dim and distant past (the mid-1990s), a wise priest once said that "the ordination of women is a second-order issue with first-order implications." As you said, no one is going to lose their salvation simply because they supported it (at least, I don't think so... I hope not). But also as you said, it carries with it too much baggage that *does* have salvation-affecting implications – not least being that, if one can ignore the clear teaching of Scripture (and tradition, which is key to an orthodox interpretation of Scripture) in this regard, in what other regards might one decide to ignore it?
I am one who by nature tends to be a conciliator; maybe in some ways, too much of one. But there are some places where lines clearly need to be drawn: and the ostensible ordination of women to the three-fold Orders of ordained ministry in Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is one of them. It is a pretense, first of all (and God is the God of truth); and it is a pretense which is unhealthy and damaging to the life and ministry of the Church. Given those facts, what can we say about its ultimate (metaphysical) origin...? The conclusion seems, to me, to be sadly inescapable.
Appreciate your take, Mark. It is discouraging as a traditional/orthodox Anglican (layperson) to see all this happening and feel we are being sold a false bag of goods. I remember in McKenzie's Anglican Way, he outright advocates for lying to keep peace and I consider whether that is what we are seeing now. Comparing this conflict-avoiding to a Fireside Chat between Dennis Prager and Roy McCoy (ep. 188) was unreal. McCoy, a Calvary Chapel pastor, asserted that current clergy have bought into the lie that peace is the absence of conflict. In reality, it is only through facing conflict that we arrive at peace. I see some major avoiding of conflict, only to the detriment of our church in the years to come.
If I may just add on to my earlier comment: there are additional things that could be said about sacramental validity – not only Eucharistic, but with regard to ordination (which, of course, also carries Eucharistic implications), but you have alluded to these, and I do not wish to further flagellate a deceased equine. But I would like to elaborate a bit on #3:
"The statement is a backhanded slap to traditionalists. The statement only downplayed the importance of the issue of women’s ordination. It said it will not “disrupt our mission” as if GAFCON can carry on while alienating traditionalists. Part of the downplaying of the importance of the WO issue is saying it is not a salvation issue but only a secondary issue."
It is, and in so doing, it is telling people who contended long and hard for a Biblical and traditional understanding of this issue, back in the 1980s and '90s (and beyond) – and in the process priests who lost their livelihood, and congregations that lost their buildings – that they were making a mountain out of a molehill; that they didn't need to make such a fuss over something that was (if GAFCON's Statement is to be believed) just a secondary issue, that didn't affect either the salvation of souls or the mission of Anglicans.
That is a very hard backhanded slap indeed, delivered with a chain-mail glove, whether it was intended as such or not. It is basically saying that the pro-WO folks are right, and the traditionalists are wrong. Again, that may not be the intention, but it is the effect. It is not only affirming impaired communion, but it is breaking of fellowship. GAFCON would probably argue that that, too, is not a "salvation issue," but only a "secondary issue." But I wonder... I truly do wonder.
(And as a "P.S.," I agree with you: the post by Fr. Lee Nelson is indeed excellent.)
'Way back in the dim and distant past (the mid-1990s), a wise priest once said that "the ordination of women is a second-order issue with first-order implications." As you said, no one is going to lose their salvation simply because they supported it (at least, I don't think so... I hope not). But also as you said, it carries with it too much baggage that *does* have salvation-affecting implications – not least being that, if one can ignore the clear teaching of Scripture (and tradition, which is key to an orthodox interpretation of Scripture) in this regard, in what other regards might one decide to ignore it?
I am one who by nature tends to be a conciliator; maybe in some ways, too much of one. But there are some places where lines clearly need to be drawn: and the ostensible ordination of women to the three-fold Orders of ordained ministry in Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is one of them. It is a pretense, first of all (and God is the God of truth); and it is a pretense which is unhealthy and damaging to the life and ministry of the Church. Given those facts, what can we say about its ultimate (metaphysical) origin...? The conclusion seems, to me, to be sadly inescapable.
Appreciate your take, Mark. It is discouraging as a traditional/orthodox Anglican (layperson) to see all this happening and feel we are being sold a false bag of goods. I remember in McKenzie's Anglican Way, he outright advocates for lying to keep peace and I consider whether that is what we are seeing now. Comparing this conflict-avoiding to a Fireside Chat between Dennis Prager and Roy McCoy (ep. 188) was unreal. McCoy, a Calvary Chapel pastor, asserted that current clergy have bought into the lie that peace is the absence of conflict. In reality, it is only through facing conflict that we arrive at peace. I see some major avoiding of conflict, only to the detriment of our church in the years to come.
If I may just add on to my earlier comment: there are additional things that could be said about sacramental validity – not only Eucharistic, but with regard to ordination (which, of course, also carries Eucharistic implications), but you have alluded to these, and I do not wish to further flagellate a deceased equine. But I would like to elaborate a bit on #3:
"The statement is a backhanded slap to traditionalists. The statement only downplayed the importance of the issue of women’s ordination. It said it will not “disrupt our mission” as if GAFCON can carry on while alienating traditionalists. Part of the downplaying of the importance of the WO issue is saying it is not a salvation issue but only a secondary issue."
It is, and in so doing, it is telling people who contended long and hard for a Biblical and traditional understanding of this issue, back in the 1980s and '90s (and beyond) – and in the process priests who lost their livelihood, and congregations that lost their buildings – that they were making a mountain out of a molehill; that they didn't need to make such a fuss over something that was (if GAFCON's Statement is to be believed) just a secondary issue, that didn't affect either the salvation of souls or the mission of Anglicans.
That is a very hard backhanded slap indeed, delivered with a chain-mail glove, whether it was intended as such or not. It is basically saying that the pro-WO folks are right, and the traditionalists are wrong. Again, that may not be the intention, but it is the effect. It is not only affirming impaired communion, but it is breaking of fellowship. GAFCON would probably argue that that, too, is not a "salvation issue," but only a "secondary issue." But I wonder... I truly do wonder.
(And as a "P.S.," I agree with you: the post by Fr. Lee Nelson is indeed excellent.)